While LLMs are surely used to generate a lot of slop-code and overwhelm (open source) code bases, this surely isn't the only thing they can do. I dislike discussing the potential of a technology exclusively by looking at its negative impact.

LLMs in proper hands don't create code which is "stolen", they also shouldn't create unnecessary code and definitely don't remove any of the ownership of the programmer, at least not any more than using a mighty IDE does.

The problem seems to be in the usage of LLMs. These effects definitely do happen when just releasing an agent on a codebase without any oversight. But they can also largely be mitigated by using frameworks such as Openspec or Spec-Kit, properly designing a spec, plan, granular tasks and manually reviewing all code yourself. The LLM should not be responsible for any creative idea, it should at most verify the practicality against the codebase. When doing that, the entire creative control is in the hands of the programmer and so is the mechanical execution. The LLM is reduced to a very powerful autocomplete with a strict harness around it. Obviously this also doesn't lead to 10x or even 100x improvements in speed like some AI merchants promise, but in my personal experience the speedup is still significant enough to make LLMs a very, very useful technology.

https://blog.jonathanoliver.com/ddd-strategic-design-core-su...

It would be helpful if they'd take a loss as a learning opportunity. But as stated in the original quote they threw a tantrum and accused the opponent of cheating, taking away no lesson to improve the next time around.

Also not sure what you mean by additional effort? Created_at, updated_at or soft-deletes are part of most proper frameworks. In Spring all you need is an annotation, I've been using those in major projects and implementation cost is around a few seconds with so far zero seconds of maintenance effort in years of development. At least those fields are solved problems.

It's completely up to your ability to both find what you need without them and verify the information they give you to evaluate their usefulness. If you put that on a matrix, this makes them useful in the quadrant of information that is both hard to find, but very easy to verify. Which at least in my daily work is a reasonable amount.

Did you read the post? OpenAI clearly states that the results are cherry-picked. Just a random query will have far worse results. To get equal results you need to ask the same query dozens of time and then have enough expertise to pick the best one, which might be quite hard for a problem that you have little idea about.

Combine this with the fact that this blog post is a sales pitch with the very best test results out of probably many more benchmarks we will never see and it seems obvious that human experts are still several order of magnitudes ahead.

What I did was to have a very strong introspection over a few weeks. I thought about each important aspect of my life - social life, family, career, hobbies, health, even my daily structure - and formulated a very specific target for each area. Basically a well thought out fantasy character. This was hard work, it took many nights of thinking and it's honestly a process that never stops, even nowadays I still update that document from time to time.

Once I had a list I was reasonably happy with, I started thinking of the type of person that would reach that goals and what kind of habits they had. And then I started implementing them. The most important part here is a habit of doing stuff. I can not stress enough how important that is, everything else pales in comparison. I recommend reading Atomic Habits and personally follow the "Getting Things Done" system. But once you have written down everything you need to do and actually do it, you have a superpower and the ability to transform every part of your life in a few months. I found that most "hard" things in life are actually quite easy to do, it's just that doing stuff consistently is extremely hard.

I agree with the author, simply telling people about your future self also helps massively. The first time it will feel extremely weird, like talking about a fantasy character. You will talk about some guy you seemingly have nothing in common with and talk about future achievements with absolutely nothing to back it up. But do it 2-3 times and suddenly that future self will feel familiar. Do it some more, take some steps to be that person and suddenly you'll be far more similar to that guy than you could've ever envisioned.

At least for myself this process was the most important thing I've ever done in my life. I've gone from a pretty shy, boring, somewhat depressed and risk-averse guy to moving across the country for an awesome job, restarting my entire social life and solo-travelling across the world. And most importantly, I'm happy now, it feels like I'm finally me and not just the product of my upbringing and surroundings.

In my experience, online dating is a pretty well functioning marketplace. People have a limited amount of time to date, so they'll take the best one they can get. Of course, online dating narrows down the ranking process to superficial information, but I don't think there's a technical solution to that. As a man I've seen both sides of the coin. When I started out with online dating I didn't have good pictures, no good bio, no good writing skills and didn't pay. I went months without a good match and even longer without a date. Then I decided to clean up my profile, highlight my strengths as a potential partner, learned to carry a fun conversation and started paying for the product and suddenly had to reject women, simply because I had too many options for any given night.

Dating apps are just a more extreme form of real dating. Dating always has been a competition, people will choose the best partner they can get. The advantage of the real world is that people often don't have many choices, but the disadvantage of the real world is also that people don't have many choices. Apps get rid of that disadvantage, but also of that advantage.

Considering that the democratic backsliding across the globe is coincidentally happening at the same time as the rise of social media and echo chambers, are we sure about that? LLM have the opportunity to create a handcrafted echo chamber for every person on this planet, which is quite risky in an environment where almost every democracy of the planet is fighting against radical forces trying to abolish it.

I see it like smoking. It should be legal, but there need to be laws in place preventing smokers from harming and annoying anyone that chooses not to smoke. Ads should be legal, but there need to be laws in place allowing people to completely avoid them by paying a fair price. Until this is the case and everyone can choose, making them unavoidable is morally wrong.

I can see WFH jobs decreasing your salary if you lived in a big city with high wages before, but for anyone else the advantages of global competition pay a massive premium right now. Maybe that changes at some point, but looking at the massive shortage of software experts my country is facing right now, this point is still decades away.

In the end Reddit and Mods are co-dependent on each other. Mods use the platform provided by Reddit, but Reddit uses the voluntary work of mods to have a usable platform. Reddit could exchange all voluntary workers with paid mods, but I doubt something capital-intensive like that is what they planned for their pre-IPO strategy.

Well put, I've also noticed this. Be it games, movies or sports. Whenever I enjoy something, I just know that the moment I go on Reddit (or Twitter), there will be a shitstorm complaining and crying about mundane details. And without fails those threads gain thousands of upvotes, while the positive threads die with 12 upvotes in new. Outrage seems to be the best way to drive engagement and clicks.